Two of WW2s Greatest Tank Aces Compared

[Colonel J Lee]

This was a fun read: http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/pool.pages/armor.myths.htm

From Col Rodney Thomas (ret) by way of Maj Michael

Williard (ret); both 3AD Cold War/Gulf War veterans. EXPLODING A FEW MYTHS ABOUT WORLD WAR II ARMOR

EXPLODING A FEW MYTHS ABOUT WORLD WAR II ARMOR

Including a Comparison of Lafayette Pool

and Germany's Michael Wittmann

By Stephen 'Cookie' Sewell

Museum Ordnance Magazine

September 1993

Sitting at a table on behalf of The Ordnance Museum Foundation, Inc., here at Aberdeen Proving Ground on Armed Forces Day 1993, I noticed that a great number of people are believers in myths that surround the German Army of World War II. Many of the people who stopped by had a number of negative comments about the perceived "lack of interest" by the museum in their favorite German tanks and the reasons they were so significant. (It must be noted that the charter of the ordnance Museum is to preserve the history of the development of American ordnance and armored vehicles, and to include significant foreign developments where possible.)

I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who is credited with the quote. "It is easy to defeat a lie with the truth; it is much harder to kill a myth." Of the many comments that were made to us about the mythology surrounding the German armored vehicles, I would like to address certain issues from other points of view in this short article.

Myth #1

The Greatest Tank of the Second

World War was the Tiger I.

Oh? Why? Maybe the best KNOWN overall, and the most notorious, but far from the greatest. This tank was designed as a 30-ton tank (later upgraded to 45 tons) but still came in between 56

and 62 tons; it was underpowered and poorly suited for any kind of mobility battle. Tanks are weapons of the offensive; this tank was not equipped for that type of warfare (remember Blitzkrieg?), nor was it well suited for "cornfield meets" at 500 meters or less.

The Russians were very respectful of the Tiger, but they were also under no illusions as to its combat potential. Their tactics - charge until you are inside the 500-meter range where the T-34's 76mm gun could penetrate the sides or rear of the Tiger - were born out of the desperation of having many more tanks than the enemy but with a less powerful cannon (until 1943) that forced them to adapt. Once the T-34/85 and the IS series of tanks appeared, the Tiger was treated as the dinosaur that it was.

Tanks like the Tiger were designed to combat tanks like the Soviet KV series. Were it not for the KV, it is doubtful the Tiger, as we know it, would have ever developed.

Myth #2

The Panther was the Best All Around

Tank of the Second World War.

Strike Two. The Panther only came about because the German leadership suffered a bout of "NIH" syndrome (Not Invented Here) and ignored the pleas of commanders like Guderian to simply reverse-engineer and adapt the T-34 for German production. As a result, it had a higher silhouette than any Soviet tank, a gasoline engine, and a very weak running gear system that plagued the tank during its combat career.

To give the Panther its due, it carried the hardest hitting 75mm gun of the Second World War; this weapon contributed heavily to French thinking after the war and was the basic weapon chosen to be developed into the 75mm autoloader cannon in the EBR 75 and AMX 13. Its armor was thicker than the T-34 and the Sherman, but it was not well designed; D and A models had a marvelous shot-trap beneath the mantlet that was used to ricochet AP shells down into the thin roof where they would kill the driver and bow gunner.

Reliability was poor - the vehicle was not noted for its ability to conduct long road marches, and the Soviets enjoyed the fact that they could not get captured models to make a simple 200-kilometer road march without breakdown. This was partially due to the poor suspension design (interleaved road wheels) and partially to the conditions under which the tank was used. This tank was also over its targeted weight limit and to the Soviets was a joke - a medium tank that weighed only one ton less than their heavy tanks and did not have the mobility, reliability, or overall useful firepower of the IS-2.

Tanks excel based on balance: the Panther had superior firepower, good armor protection, and poor mobility. That's not balance.

Myth #3

The Tiger II was the Most Influential

Tank of the Second World War.

On what and by who? The Tiger II was a desperate design of overkill that combined the design of the Panther with the concept of the Tiger and wound up with a 68-ton tank that had the worst deployability of any tank of the war (one has to keep things like bridges and roads in mind when designing tanks!!).

If the Tiger II was so influential, then what was its legacy? Surely no tanks were designed to copy its features. It used the classic German balanced layout of transmission front-engine rear which all other countries ditched for either cross drive or "guitar" transverse engine and transmission layouts. It used massive weight of armor for protection which only added to its troubles; being "Sherman-proof" from the front does you no good if you can't catch the little devils.

The Tiger II was also a victim of the late war German economy. It had no real reliability due to the fact that its rubber-hubbed wheels tended to flex under load and, placing uneven strain on the tracks, tended to snap links at the hinges. Like the Tiger I before it, this is a desperation defensive weapon that did not give them advantages.

Finally, even the Soviets had no fear of this tank. The first one they encountered in combat during 1944 was immediately knocked out by a T-34/85; the Soviets made capital over the fact that one of Porsche's sons was the commander of the vehicle and was killed instantly by the shell. (They felt at the time he was most responsible for the Tiger series; it was only after the war when the captured the Nibelungenwerke that they found out Edward Anders of Henschel had more to do with heavy tanks design than Ferdinand Porsche.)

A far more influential tank of the war was the Soviet IS-3; this inspired much more Cold War mythos of its own and was directly responsible for a number of US and foreign designs, as well as the US Ml03 and British Conqueror programs to defeat it on postulated European battlefields.

Myth #4

Michael Wittmann was the Greatest Tank

Commander of the Second World War.

This is a subject of even more speculation. Wittmann was no doubt brave and skillful, and he is given credit for a great deal of prowess on the battlefield. His score is listed as 138 tanks and 132 anti-tank guns destroyed in a career stretching from June 1941 to August 1944. While awarded every major German combat award up to the Swords for the Knight's Cross (Germany's second highest combat decoration), it should be pointed out that he was an unrepentant Nazi who had joined the Party in 1937 and was posted to SS units.

Lacking good Information on Soviet tanks aces (which do not appear to be many due to a very short life in many units), my personal counterclaim to the title of greatest tanker of the war would be an American staff sergeant named Lafayette G. Pool who, while operating a 76mm Sherman, managed to destroy 258 enemy vehicles between 27 June 1944 and 15 September 1944. This is a far greater achievement than Wittmann's, and given the relative merits of each man's case puts him in a better position to be the supreme "over-achiever" of the war.

To compare them, they have many things in common and many things that differentiate them. Both chose armor as a branch. Wittmann joining the SS Llebstandarte Adolph Hitler Division in 1939 and Pool the 40th Armored Regiment in 1941. Both men had taken punishment and it showed - Wittmann, a shell explosion that sliced up his face and body, and Pool, a few "souvenirs" as a Golden Gloves champ in Texas. Both were skilled in tactics and use of their respective tanks, and both were excellent at small unit leadership.

Wittmann is best associated as a company commander from the 2nd Company of SS Panzer Abteilung 501. Pool was only associated in combat with the 3rd Platoon, "I" Company, 3rd Battalion, 32nd Armored Regiment, 3rd US Armored Division. Wittmann is best known in his Tiger I number 805 from the 501st. Pool's tank (he went through three in his short career) was always named IN THE MOOD; it was a 76mm M4A1 WSS Sherman. Both men had a personal hold on their crew members and remained close where possible. Wittmann kept the same gunner, SS Oberscharfuehrer Balthasar Woll, through the war. Pool also kept the same crew: CPL Wilbert "Red" Richards, driver; PFC Bert Close, assistant driver/bow gunner; CPL Willis Oiler, gunner; and T/5 Del Boggs, loader.

Both men fought their tanks to their best advantage. For Wittmann, this was using either ambush or a slow advance with the heavy firepower of the Tiger's 88mm gun and its massive frontal armor limiting enemy responses. Pool, on the other hand, was noted for moving right into the enemy and mixing it up. When one considers that his favorite foe appears to have been the Panther - never a good choice to take on with any Sherman at any range - the fact that he only lost three tanks in combat, while racking up the score that he did, seems all the more remarkable.

However, the two men ended their combat careers in different ways. Wittmann with a whimper and Pool with a bang. Wittmann appears to have been killed in a series of Allied air raids called Operation Totalize; he never had a chance to fight back, and his company and his tank were destroyed in the bombing. Pool found out the hard way that "three's the charm" and, while functioning as the "spearhead" of the Spearhead Division south of Aachen, Germany, tried to shoot it out with more Panthers. This time Pool lost and the Sherman backed into a ditch and rolled over after two 75mm shells hit the tank. The four crew members survived with minor wounds, but Pool was blown out of the turret and wounded badly enough to require being medivaced; he was sent home to convalesce and survived the war.

Wittmann was undoubtedly the best that the Germans had, but his time in combat (as a tank commander) was something in excess of 25 months. Pool was only in combat for 80 days (21 engagements). Based on time, equipment, and accomplishment, Lafayette Pool is a better call for the best tanker of the war.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[The_Enigma]

Intresting read

But going off the last paragragh i was under the impression there was some tank commanders who were more successful then Witmann? :confused:

[Sirocco]

It doesn't mention that Wittmann started out in a StuG, a 75mm short, if I recall correctly. I don't see surviving over 25 months as a negative, either.

Overall I thought the article was too full of national prejudice to take it seriously.

[The_Enigma]

It doesn't mention that Wittmann started out in a StuG, a 75mm short, if I recall correctly. I don't see surviving over 25 months as a negative, either.

I think most people forget that bit.

Wittmann = he only ever had a Tiger, was the highest scoring Panzer Ace Evar! he wiped out the 7th Armour division at Villas Bocage

[Michael Dorosh]

Did anybody use that bizarre interleaved road wheel set up after the war? Good article.

[Kingfish]

an American staff sergeant named Lafayette G. Pool who, while operating a 76mm Sherman, managed to destroy 258 enemy vehicles between 27 June 1944 and 15 September 1944. This is a far greater achievement than Wittmann's,

If you consider trucks and Kubelwagons in the same category as Russian tanks and AT guns.

Wittmann appears to have been killed in a series of Allied air raids called Operation Totalize; he never had a chance to fight back, and his company and his tank were destroyed in the bombing.

Forget the Typhoon theory, lets kick it up a notch and give the credit to a carpet bombing B17.

[Baron von Beergut]

Whitmann with 25 months combat vs Pool with a little more than 2.5, ok 10 times as long for Whitmann. 117 of Whitmann's kills were done over a 7 month period for an average of almost 17 per month.

But of Pool's 258 vehicles, only 12 were tanks. And Whitmann is credited with 138 tanks, or more than 11 times as many. So he averages out to more kills per day in combat, but that does not lessen Pool's achievement and surviving the war.

Not mentioned is Otto Carius who is credited with 150 tank kills and as far as I can tell is still alive today.

The highest soviet ace I ever heard of was credited with 52 tank and assault gun kills.

[Guest Mike]

Kingfish wrote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />an American staff sergeant named Lafayette G. Pool who, while operating a 76mm Sherman, managed to destroy 258 enemy vehicles between 27 June 1944 and 15 September 1944. This is a far greater achievement than Wittmann's,

If you consider trucks and Kubelwagons in the same category as Russian tanks and AT guns. </font>

[Kanonier Reichmann]

The trouble with interleaved roadweels as I understand it is that they may provide a superior ride for the tank crew but at the expense of over-engineering (common German problem) and creating the likelihood of mud and stones and other crap building up between the wheels and causing breakdowns. Good in theory... poor in practice.

I guess that's why you don't see that design after the war but mainly Christie style suspension and road wheel designs. Vertical & horizontal volute systems seem to also have fallen by the wayside although I'm not quite sure why they may not be in favour still. I'm guessing complexity and inferior flotation compared with a Christie system? Anybody know for sure?

Regards

Jim R.

[Earl Grey]

This article is not only biased, it isn't objective. What, for example, have the unit affiliation or his political views of Wittmann to do with his combat record?

[Vulture-suc4]

I would echo some of the other comments that I thought the article was biased, and some areas factually incorrect. Without tearing the whole thing to pieces, I would like to pick up on one aspect regarding the Panther

"Tanks excel based on balance: the Panther had superior firepower, good armour protection, and poor mobility. That's not balance."

That is not correct. What it should have said was:

Superior Firepower, good armour protection, good mobility, some design flaws which effected reliability.

The Panther had excellent mobility and was far better at traversing over soft ground than almost all US and UK tanks. In addition it provided a better quality of ride.

The suspension design imposed a greater maintenance and repair burden compared with allied vehicles, plus the final drive connection to the front sprockets was not man enough for the job. The time of year, intensity of operations and crew quality dictated whether these aspects became significant.

By way of an afterthought, on the subject of the Tiger II, again it had very good mobility, but as the final drives were the same as the Panthers, it was even less reliable in this aspect.

Vulture

[The_Enigma]

"Tanks excel based on balance: the Panther had superior firepower, good armour protection, and poor mobility. That's not balance."

I remember reading an article many years ago, so sorry i cant link to it or anything, which stated that tank design pre war and during the war was very much a case of you pick 2 out of the 3:

Firepower

Mobility

Protection.

Dont know if that should effect our own or the authors perception on the tank designs seen throughout the war?

[Mick15]

Vulture-suc4 said

I would echo some of the other comments that I thought the article was biased, and some areas factually incorrect. Without tearing the whole thing to pieces, I would like to pick up on one aspect regarding the Panther

"Tanks excel based on balance: the Panther had superior firepower, good armour protection, and poor mobility. That's not balance."

That is not correct. What it should have said was:

Superior Firepower, good armour protection, good mobility, some design flaws which effected reliability.

Absolutely agree, notwithstanding one or two issues an interesting article and thread. It underlines how often discussion forgets/ignores the importance of mechanical reliability.

It may be an individual crewman would rather be in a working panther than facing the same in a particular allied vehicle - interesting speculation.

However as a tool the unreliable vehicle must be flawed. (I think of my first car here - all over body massage at over 30mph)

In this context the panther must be deeply flawed

Interleaved road wheels - fault at the back take off two or three to fix it. Similarly any extensive work on torsion bars behind those wheels. Time consuming. IIRC those torsion bars ran through the body of the Panther chassis.

Conventional saw tooth gear sprockets rather than herringbone arrangements - small surface area large stress - will break easily. This is particularly true when the original weight specification for the vehicle is exceeded as in the Panther.

Site those gears in an inaccessible position and time for repair is a problem. I recollect being told, in a visit to Bovington, gear repair on a Panther took an inordinate time (days?) as much of the drivers compartment required dismantling.

Finally a plug for the quality of these forums. On the subject of Michael Wittmann; For those interested there is nothing to add to what is in the thread in the CMBO forum - "Michael Wittmann - Did we find the answer".

It is a truly great thread and very informative. It is not without its own unique drama including at least one teddy leaving the pram but if you want to cut to the chase read Desert Fox's post of 28th May 2002 within the thread.

[Colonel J Lee]

I posted this thread (and it's content) because it was a 'good read'. I enjoy reading the comments you guys have made. There is some real knowledge about the subject matter of WW2 and its men and machines on this forum. Very good stuff. Thanks.

I can tell the article is biased (most are one way or the other; most, not all). Certainly Wittman's victories were in a vehicle that, overall, was better than all (or most) of the allied vehicles it faced. Yet, he did destroy, apparently, largely tanks whereas Pool destroyed 'vehicles' (though we're not told the exact number of each kind - someone said 12 tanks). At any rate, he was a bold tanker using a vulnerable vehicle (Sherman) late in the war. He had to drive close enough to the enemy to destroy that many vehicles (I would guess very few of them were Kubelwagens!). One thought came to mind, he had to have some serious nerve to get close enough to vehciles, and therefore, German soldiers who typically had those vicious panzerfausts at their disposal! Wittman never had to think about dealing with enemy infantry carrying those things (Bazookas didn't compare with them). All said, I would say Wittman was the best. Certainly these two men and others like them knew their machines strengths and weakenesses, how to employ them, and had the command and respect of their crewmen.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Colonel J Lee:

Certainly Wittman's victories were in a vehicle that, overall, was better than all (or most) of the allied vehicles it faced.

I don't get that from that article at all.

Firstly, he got a lot of kills in the StuG, a turretless assault gun, though the article doesn't mention that and should. But the article also demolishes the myth that the Tiger was some sort of super-vehicle. It may not even go far enough to do that. Many models of Sherman tank had as much frontal armour, or more, than the Tiger, were more mechanically reliable, certainly built in larger numbers. Their guns were mostly pathetically weak, and doctrinal issue forced them to fight tank-vs.-tank battles that they were unprepared for.

But artillery, and brave men in all the services, won the Second World War, and so tank vs. tank comparisons seem a bit beside the point in any event.

[Broompatrol]

I guess we can look at it as and intereting opinion piece and not a foundation for a well concieved debate.

There were points that jumped at me too: "vehicles v tanks" Obviously Poole can only shoot at whatever targets he has and its not a reflection on his skill that he didn't have a opportunity to shoot more tanks, but It isn't really as impressive if the targets can't shoot back.

The comments regarding Whitmann's politics have several implications. Is it that he should not be respected because of them? Or, does it mean we should look at his accomplishments in a different light. Because he was a well connected SS man he was able to cherry pick and perhaps his record is padded due to propagana, Like that screwball Stuka driver (you know who.)? I don't know I'm just pointing it out.

One thing, for any German to survive combat for 25 months is noteworthy to me.

[Broompatrol]

Its kinda like the Richtoffen(sp?) V Rickenbacher comparison. Both were great pilots with impressive records, but the context of their service was so different that it makes a point by point comparison difficult and awkward.

It seems to just boil down to rooting for "your team".

[Colonel J Lee]

Michael: you wrote regarding my statement, "Certainly Wittman's victories were in a vehicle that, overall, was better than all (or most) of the allied vehicles it faced":

I don't get that from that article at all.

At this point, I am not making my comment with the article in view. The Tiger was better than most of the vehicles it faced and Wittman had most of his kills in the Tiger didn't he? The Stug kills were through '42, right? The Russian opponents he faced were sub par (mostly green as I understand it) and the early model T-34 had it's problems as well with one of the men in the turret doubling as gunner and loader (the commander?); also they lacked radios, so I've read. The better Russian tanks and more experienced commanders in greater numbers came later. Regardless, I admit his feats while commanding a STUG with the shorty '75' were impressive; but I think they are mitigated a bit in that he was facing lesser opponents at that point of the Eastern front war.

You also wrote, "Many models of Sherman tank had as much frontal armour, or more, than the Tiger, were more mechanically reliable, certainly built in larger numbers. Their guns were mostly pathetically weak, and doctrinal issue forced them to fight tank-vs.-tank battles that they were unprepared for."

Yes. I don't know if "many" models of Shermans had more than 4 inches of frontal armour (the Jumbo Sherman did). In any event, I would say that if both tanks meet in the battlefield (i.e., don't break down), the Sherman is generally in big trouble. As you noted, weaker gun and almost always the weaker armour. The Shermans that were up-armoured were not helped much by the increased plates, because the fausts and Panther/Tiger guns could STILL easily penetrate them.

You wrote: "But artillery, and brave men in all the services, won the Second World War, and so tank vs. tank comparisons seem a bit beside the point in any event."

Yes, they did win the war by way of combined arms. However, the "point" of the article was a tank commander to tank commander comparison, primarily. It's a valid comparison, but limited I agree because of the many factors to consider as you and others have noted in this post! In the final analysis, we both come to the same conclusion I think.

BTW, are you the one that does all those amazing mods for CM under the name "Mikie D"? I've downloaded about 30 of them. They are great. THANKS! What a visual improvement. One more thing, Michael: when you say in the mod picture previews, "for CMAK", does that include "CMETO"?

[JonS]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Wittmann appears to have been killed in a series of Allied air raids called Operation Totalize; he never had a chance to fight back, and his company and his tank were destroyed in the bombing.

Forget the Typhoon theory, lets kick it up a notch and give the credit to a carpet bombing B17. </font>

[Broompatrol]

I believe the (W) means wet ammo storage but I don't know what WSS means altogther

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Broompatrol:

I believe the (W) means wet ammo storage but I don't know what WSS means altogther

I imagine the Vs in VVSS (Vertical Volute Spring Suspension, as distinct from HVSS) have run together.

All the best,

John.

[JonS]

Yeah, that's my assumption too. Interesting that the error - if that's what it is - has been carried over from the original.

[The_Enigma]

Originally posted by Broompatrol:

I guess we can look at it as and intereting opinion piece and not a foundation for a well concieved debate.

There were points that jumped at me too: "vehicles v tanks" Obviously Poole can only shoot at whatever targets he has and its not a reflection on his skill that he didn't have a opportunity to shoot more tanks, but It isn't really as impressive if the targets can't shoot back.

The comments regarding Whitmann's politics have several implications. Is it that he should not be respected because of them? Or, does it mean we should look at his accomplishments in a different light. Because he was a well connected SS man he was able to cherry pick and perhaps his record is padded due to propagana, Like that screwball Stuka driver (you know who.)? I don't know I'm just pointing it out.

One thing, for any German to survive combat for 25 months is noteworthy to me.

I believe there was a German fighter pilot who racked up a large number of kills stated something along the lines of the numbers he downed didnt show anything about his skill but it showed that he had allot more oppounity to makes the kills then say fighter pilots over the western front.

One could possibly apply this.

Wittmann had more opponunites - time and numbers of tanks his opponents had in comparion to the time and opporunities allied tankers in the ETO would have.

So i think the articles summary of who was the better tank is a little silly.